Reiss: A pipeline full of gas and our sustainable future

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Chuck Reiss of Hinesburg. He is the owner of Reiss Building and Renovation whose work has won numerous Energy Star of Vermont awards, a founding member and director of Building for Social Responsibility and has taught environmental science at the University of Vermont and Community College of Vermont

I attended the Public Service Board’s meeting a while ago (March 21 public meeting 7970 at CVU High School) where most of us had a chance to let the board know how we felt about Vermont Gas Systems’ proposed pipeline through Hinesburg and surrounding towns. I am a Hinesburg resident and do not support the gas pipeline as it is presently being proposed.

I sat at the meeting for almost three hours to hear the issues. Unfortunately, I arrived a few minutes late and did not get my name on the signup sheet to speak. It may be just as well, for it gave me some time to reflect on the comments and allow me to process the responses I heard at the meeting. It was educational to see how the various speakers began to fall into specific interest groups.

There were clearly those that would benefit economically from the lower cost fuel; the International Paper owners and their employees, the Cabot cheese company representatives, the municipal representatives that saw the new gas line as an economic engine for their beleaguered towns as well as the commerce council personnel that see the cheap gas as the way to promote economic development for their constituents.

There was also another group of speakers that were concerned for the safety of their families with a high pressure pipeline that close to their homes. They also spoke of an easement that Vermont Gas is presenting to them that would allow any type of petroleum product to be transported through the installed pipeline, including tar sands oil.

Another cluster of speakers were more focused on the fact that the gas that would be transported through this pipeline would have a percentage of fracked gas. From my own research and from what speakers were saying that night, it is clear that fracked gas comes at an environmental cost. The release of methane during the fracking process and the destruction of aquifers (albeit not in Vermont because we have banned fracking) is enough for me to oppose the transport of this type of gas. I do not want to be complicit in the destruction of other people’s property and water resources in another part of North America to the benefit myself and my fellow Vermonters. This is a moral dilemma for me.

One speaker towards the end of the night stood up to say that the discussion for the evening had a recurring theme: one of economic advantage that comes at an environmental cost. That sounded perhaps insightful at the moment, but now having time to reflect on his comment and those throughout the night, I disagree. If I were to contribute to the discussion, I would first like to start with a description of my day just before the Public Service Board meeting.

Performance contractor, one of 70 or so across the state. We do energy audits, weatherize homes and install renewable energy. This particular house I audited the day of the Public Service Board meeting uses almost 1,000 gallons of fuel oil and two cords of wood to heat the house annually. I spent four hours at the house and at the end of my stay I had formulated a plan to get this house to almost 100 percent renewable energy. Between additional insulation, air sealing, solar pv, air-air heat pumps and wood, this house could become close to net zero energy and more importantly carbon neutral. This may not happen all at once and may have to be phased in over time, as the budget allows, but the household energy road map is in place and the technology is there to get this home to where it will not contribute to global warming and also become more economical to run in the long run.

So I question the idea that we need to choose between economic advantage and environmental stewardship. Weatherizing our homes and adding renewable energy is also an economic driver, it adds hundreds of jobs and can significantly stimulate the local Vermont economy. The state has a stated goal of weatherizing 80,000 homes by 2020, which is only 25 percent of the homes in the state. There is plenty of opportunity for weatherization and renewable installers and that opportunity will mean jobs and a healthy local economy. And the more important part of this economic actively is that it is actually cleaning up our environment. I guess I do not see why we are continuing to pretend that we need to choose between economic development and the environment. That idea just becomes a justification for making the more difficult choice of changing how we think. More on this in a moment.

Another concept that kept being repeated throughout the Public Service Board meeting was that natural gas is clean. This is also one of those ideas that if you hear it repeated enough and wish hard enough it might just come true. First of all natural gas is still a fossil fuel and if you include the life cycle energy used to get this fuel to your house it might be 25 percent more efficient overall than oil or LP gas. So compared to a house that releases no carbon, it still releases 75 percent the amount of carbon compared to next dirtier fuel. It may be cleaner but it is not clean. And fracked gas is just a dirty fuel, in the same category as tar sands. My concern is that the pipeline is being presented as the only significant fuel alternative we have at the moment to oil from traditional sources. But we do have alternatives, and companies like mine are presently helping homeowners make the switch to renewable energy every day. Transition fuels that are cleaner should be used sparingly and only when we have exhausted other alternatives.

So the Public Service Board has been given the task of determining if the new gas line is in the best interest of Vermonters, or to use the language of the board: the public good. This idea of the public good actually raises some interesting questions. Is this the public good for the next five years or even the next 10 years? How about the next 50 years? Or how about the next couple of generations? It may not be politically expedient for the members of the board to consider long-term consequences, because they may be removed if they anger too many interest groups today. It is also in the best interest of the collective Vermont population for a particular project to significantly benefit one or two businesses? Is in really a public good to promote and subsidize the use of a fossil fuel that contributes to a clearly demonstrated public detriment like global warming when there are reasonable alternatives?

These questions beg us to consider how we collectively make decisions about our future. The idea that the air we breathe, the water we use, the beauty we observe as a “commons” was advanced many years ago. We collectively need to come to an understanding of how we can protect our commons. Not just for the next election cycle but really protect if for the long haul, so our great-grandchildren are not looking back and wonder what we were thinking. Right now what we are thinking depends on which interest group makes the loudest noise and can apply the necessary political pressure to get their way. That will not protect the commons. Our present path is not sustainable; we are on the politically practical path, which leads to who will be electable in a couple of years, which in turn is a reflection of the public understanding of the issues. The flow of information is a critical part of moving forward in a sustainable way.

I have a proposal for the gas line that may achieve a true public good, protect the commons and the economic interest of the state. It may not be what the various interest groups would like, but then again we have to begin this journey down the sustainable path sometime and the future generations will be appreciative of our effort.

Proposed conditions for the transport of natural gas in Vermont

• The pipeline will only transport natural gas that has not been extracted by fracking. It will not carry any other fuel, now or in the future.

• The building structures hooking up to the gas line must demonstrate that their structures have been insulated, air sealed and renewable energy options considered. The amount of gas allocated to these buildings will be considered transition fuel and will have a termination date. The termination date will be determined by the comprehensive energy plan for the building and the “household energy road map” that was put in place to get the structures fossil fuel free.

• The pipeline will not go through environmentally sensitive areas and will not destroy existing natural features. At no location will the pipeline be close to residential homes.

• If a particular industry uses a significantly large share of the transported gas, they should pay for that proportional cost to install the pipeline. As additional users begin to use a portion of the transported gas, the new users can reimburse the industry that initially funded the installation of the pipeline (pro-rated). Industries benefiting from the gas line must also demonstrate that they have met the requirement of air sealing, insulating and considered the options for renewable energy. They will be held to the road map to sustainability they generated with their comprehensive energy plan.

• Once natural gas has been depleted the gas line will be capped and terminated.

I think this is a rational approach, one that addresses the idea of a transitional fuel with an eye on the real goal, to achieve a truly sustainable energy future by moving to renewable energy. Who could have a problem with that?

So I would like to revisit my earlier thought about changing how we think. The proposal above would require us to approach the present day issues in light of where we want to be in the future. Our sense of the individual and what is best for me now, would have to give way to what is best for the community and what is best way to protect the commons for myself and future generations. The American rugged individualism served us well when we need to survive pioneer life, but now it only serves to cloud the issues and we end up in paralysis, the interest group tug of war, where no one group really wins and we all lose. Not to say that we have to relinquish our individual efforts, but we need to make sure these efforts fit within the general plan to reach a sustainable future. This is the transition of thought, along with the transition of fuel source, we need to make and this is really the crux of the matter.

Adam Smith’s invisible hand is just that — it’s invisible, it never materialized. By pursuing our own good without regard to the impact of the commons, we are in fact trashing the commons. It’s time to address this misguided approach. It’s time to make decisions collective that truly reflect the true public good, a good that protects the commons that we all rely on and that future generations will rely on. Let’s have the courage to make the hard decisions today that will benefit us all tomorrow.

It may be a tragic human flaw that we cannot resolve our differences and come to a common understanding of how we protect our world for ourselves and future generations. The evolution of our large human brain has served us well. We have been able to discover and understand much of the natural world around us and for better or worse we have been able to manipulate the natural world to our benefit and detriment. Our greatest test may be before us now, to come to a collective understanding of how we can move forward in a sustainable way that benefits ourselves and the generations to come and protects the natural resources that supports all life on the planet. I am of the belief that a tragic flaw only becomes tragic when you do not recognize it as a flaw.

I know this is a rather lengthy discourse for a pipeline discussion, but as it goes with all significant decisions we make, the underlying considerations need to be addressed if we are to move in a direction that will truly benefit the larger community, which includes all life forms and future generations. Thank you for considering the broader context within which this issue rests.